Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Both 'Colour' and 'Flavour' contain the letter 'U' and the word 'Route' is not pronounced 'Rowt'. The name 'Cecil' is not pronounced as 'See-sill and the word 'Herbs' is not pronounced "erbs". The word "ALUMINIUM" is pronounced AL-U-MIN-I-UM and not AL-U-MIN-UM.
That will do for today. Don't want to tax that brain of yours huh?
I "see" your point. Your personal subjective opinion is that you don't like people thinking the Bible is a superlative basis for codes and rules.
What I don't get: If you acknowledge that nothing else has any greater objective merit...what is your issue with the use of the Bible? You concur it's no worse or better than anything else...so, what's the problem...beyond your hang-ups about it?
My point, again: No matter what the "view" of the people that make the laws...their laws will be accepted by some and opposed by others. And regardless of what basis any governing body uses to establish their laws...none are more, and none are less "good, true, and valid".
Because of that...dismissing a Biblical basis for lawmaking in favor of another will not gain you anything...since neither is any better than the other.
Thus...any issue one would have over using the Bible (or anything else) as a source for concepts to design laws after...is nothing but the headtrips of the person that has the problem. There is no objective advantage to use something other than the Bible (or anything else).
There is no objective advantage to the use of ANY particular thing...because it is all subjective.
My problem with the Bible and the religions that derive from it, and religion in general where it results in men in funny hats telling us what to do, is that it is not based on the best available tools with a proven track record of producing reliable fact and logical decisions. It is based on Faith - claims which have not been supported by a rationanle that stands up under scrutiny.
I therefore want a global society based on reason, not on religion. It is my take but I trust humanity enough to believe that they, too, want their worldview to be based on the best information. We find this even in religion. The apologists love to assert that it is all based on sound logic and reliable evidence, and they only revert to justification by Faith when that all backfires.
My problem with the Bible and the religions that derive from it, and religion in general where it results in men in funny hats telling us what to do, is that it is not based on the best available tools with a proven track record of producing reliable fact and logical decisions. It is based on Faith - claims which have not been supported by a rationanle that stands up under scrutiny.
I therefore want a global society based on reason, not on religion. It is my take but I trust humanity enough to believe that they, too, want their worldview to be based on the best information. We find this even in religion. The apologists love to assert that it is all based on sound logic and reliable evidence, and they only revert to justification by Faith when that all backfires.
We have people "telling us what to do"...no matter what.
"Society based on *reason*" is kind of a "sticky wicket".
Who's/what "reasoning" do we go by to determine what is to be the "objective basis" for "the law"?--Your's, mine, the US laws in 2010, the US laws in 1710, the Middle East in 2010, Rome in 2010, Rome 2000 yrs ago, the penal code of any random country of choosing, Hitlers reasoning, what Gandhi reasoned, strict "natural selection"...how about Gen Custer, how about Sitting Bull, how about my/your/whoevers' Grandmother, etc, etc, etc?
Since what man considers "moral" varies so much from person to person, place to place, culture to culture, time to time, and situation to situation...using any secular moral code cannot possibly ever be purely "logical and/or reasonable".
Hey...it could be deemed "sound reason" that our laws should follow a strict "survival of the fittest" platform. It works for other species of animals. And man functioned like that for most of human history.
What "objective basis" does anybody have for determining morality/law? I submit...it must be concluded that they don't. It can't ever be anything BUT subjective!
ALL simply use "FAITH" that what they "BELIEVE" would be good basis for governance...actually IS. If you asked someone else they might say something you think is "good"...is "bad".
See...determination of "What is Good VS What is Bad" and "What is Right VS What is Wrong" ALWAYS rests entirely on FAITH!! The "Scientific Method" isn't at all applicable in that department...unless you want a "the fit survive" system.
This is why the "religious" turn to their theology for their "moral code". That way...a "believed in Higher Power" sets the standard...not man...so they "reason" through their "faith".
Sooooooo....Keep the FAITH!! It's REALLY all ANY of us have got to live by---Even the Atheists!!
Who's/what "reasoning" do we go by to determine what is to be the "objective basis" for "the law"?
We don't. There isn't an objective basis for law in the sense that there is a universal, immutable right-and-wrong that is true in all cases. Some things are mutually exclusive even for a Christian because they involve a balancing of conflicting rights. To a victim of rape, for example, being pregnant represents a violation, a very deeply personal violation. You cannot say that all unborn children have an equal right to live and that there are no competing rights in all cases, so you find even most Christians making exceptions for abortion in cases of rape or incest or when the carrying the child to term is a death sentence for the mother.
Rather than wasting time demanding an objective, immutable, simplistic basis for law that doesn't exist anyway, we simply need to continually adjust laws to the current sustainable best interests of society. The Bible has nothing to say about how to share cellular radio frequencies, dispose of space junk, workman's compensation or the copyrightability of DNA (or about copyrights, for that matter). There are a zillion things that we agree on that the Bible is utterly silent about. And the truth is, we agree on things the Bible isn't silent about, sometimes contrary to what the Bible says. The sun still rises each day; there is no anarchy; our world does not fly apart. No one stands around in confusion and puzzles about what reasoning to use or who gets to decide.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
